Tuesday, March 31, 2009
In which Sharon states her position clearly
Lest there be any doubt after my last post, let me state my position clearly: there are inflexible, dogmatic, partisan jerks on both sides of the political divide. That is all. Sharon out.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Memo to all name-calling cave-dwelling troglodytes
Listen up, bitches. Sharon has a newsflash for you: name-calling is not a substitute for reasoned argumentation. This goes for all you demented half-wit monkeys, regardless of political stripe.
Unless you're Mark Steyn, who does everything with panache, distorting someone's name and using it as their moniker in your future references to them does not constitute a devastating refutation of their arguments. You may think you are being witty when you call Charles "Chuck" and Ernesto "Ernie" but you are likely still an idiot. Also, insulting someone's manhood (esp. if it's a woman) or disparaging their general appearance, including but not limited to weight, bicep size, breast shape, or distinguishing marks such as horned skull and pitchforked tail is not a clever rebuttal. Got that, you slimy amorphous blobs?
To be more specific, and I am directing this at my fellow conservatives (because who can read that stinking pile of sewage excreted by the left?), you lack gravitas when you call lefties "leftards". It makes you sound foolish and juvenile. You are not demolishing anybody's argument when you call them fat, or faggots, or some other vile insult best left to the schoolroom. And just because you label people of sense "Darwiniacs" does not mean you are living any less in a 6000-year old fantasy world of purely your own creation.
Sure, Ann Coulter can sometimes be good for a laugh. But I don't make the mistake of thinking that bringing her no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners, insert-cliche-here provocative talk to the public arena is going to make me win friends and influence people. Talking like a trucker with Tourette's contributes little to the public discourse.
But that's hardly the real offense. I myself make it a point to never be high-minded. No, it's not so much the justifiable contempt for one's opponents that offends my fastidious soul as the puerile language in which it is couched. But what do I know? I'm just another foul-mouthed skinny bitch.
Unless you're Mark Steyn, who does everything with panache, distorting someone's name and using it as their moniker in your future references to them does not constitute a devastating refutation of their arguments. You may think you are being witty when you call Charles "Chuck" and Ernesto "Ernie" but you are likely still an idiot. Also, insulting someone's manhood (esp. if it's a woman) or disparaging their general appearance, including but not limited to weight, bicep size, breast shape, or distinguishing marks such as horned skull and pitchforked tail is not a clever rebuttal. Got that, you slimy amorphous blobs?
To be more specific, and I am directing this at my fellow conservatives (because who can read that stinking pile of sewage excreted by the left?), you lack gravitas when you call lefties "leftards". It makes you sound foolish and juvenile. You are not demolishing anybody's argument when you call them fat, or faggots, or some other vile insult best left to the schoolroom. And just because you label people of sense "Darwiniacs" does not mean you are living any less in a 6000-year old fantasy world of purely your own creation.
Sure, Ann Coulter can sometimes be good for a laugh. But I don't make the mistake of thinking that bringing her no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners, insert-cliche-here provocative talk to the public arena is going to make me win friends and influence people. Talking like a trucker with Tourette's contributes little to the public discourse.
But that's hardly the real offense. I myself make it a point to never be high-minded. No, it's not so much the justifiable contempt for one's opponents that offends my fastidious soul as the puerile language in which it is couched. But what do I know? I'm just another foul-mouthed skinny bitch.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
In which Sharon experiences disillusionment
I recently found myself at an unnamed right-wing blog, engaged in a heated debate about evolution. Or, I should say, about creationism, because that's the theory that really needs to justify its existence, if you ask me.
If you haven't already guessed on which side of the divide I stand, it was the unpopular one. The defense was composed mainly of one scientific-sounding type called Ernesto, who was referred to variously, and not altogether respectfully, as "Ernie" and also "Moron". For the prosecution, there was one particularly virulent specimen who went around labeling everybody who disagreed with him "darwiniacs", as in, "typical darwiniac drivel" (in response to one of my comments). Then there was the guy who suggested we citizens take it into our own hands to punish adulterers by killing them. What could go wrong?
I'm also disillusioned with commenters' use of the Muslim bogeyman (as in, "The judge would never have pulled this stunt with Mohammedans"). There are aspects of Islamic practice that all thinking people should find, to say the least, troublesome. And the kid glove treatment that many on the left accord Islamists, but would never extend to a group not actually devoted to their extermination, beggars belief. But not every issue has to suffer a comparison with Islam. Some can, shockingly I know, actually be argued on their own merits.
Has it come down to this? Is the choice between a socialist dystopia under liberal rule, or becoming an irrelevant backwater under conservatives? All I know is, I see my erstwhile allies in a completely different light. Not all of my fellow travelers in the conservative movement are fighting for individual liberty and limited government. Some are pursuing values deeply inimical to these, and, in the process, rising to embody the ugliest caricatures of them conjured by the left.
If you haven't already guessed on which side of the divide I stand, it was the unpopular one. The defense was composed mainly of one scientific-sounding type called Ernesto, who was referred to variously, and not altogether respectfully, as "Ernie" and also "Moron". For the prosecution, there was one particularly virulent specimen who went around labeling everybody who disagreed with him "darwiniacs", as in, "typical darwiniac drivel" (in response to one of my comments). Then there was the guy who suggested we citizens take it into our own hands to punish adulterers by killing them. What could go wrong?
I'm also disillusioned with commenters' use of the Muslim bogeyman (as in, "The judge would never have pulled this stunt with Mohammedans"). There are aspects of Islamic practice that all thinking people should find, to say the least, troublesome. And the kid glove treatment that many on the left accord Islamists, but would never extend to a group not actually devoted to their extermination, beggars belief. But not every issue has to suffer a comparison with Islam. Some can, shockingly I know, actually be argued on their own merits.
Has it come down to this? Is the choice between a socialist dystopia under liberal rule, or becoming an irrelevant backwater under conservatives? All I know is, I see my erstwhile allies in a completely different light. Not all of my fellow travelers in the conservative movement are fighting for individual liberty and limited government. Some are pursuing values deeply inimical to these, and, in the process, rising to embody the ugliest caricatures of them conjured by the left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)